Log in/Register

Please log in or register to continue. Registration is free and requires only your email address.

Log in

Register

Emailrequired

PasswordrequiredRemember me?

Please enter your email address and click on the reset-password button. You'll receive an email shortly with a link to create a new password. If you have trouble finding this email, please check your spam folder.

One month after the Brexit referendum Kevin Hjortshøj O’Rourke points out the inaction of former "Remainers," lamenting they "have given up altogether on fighting for the future of their country."
What the author deems "worse" is that "many seem to have accepted the fundamental premise of the anti-EU “Leave” campaign: that there are too many Europeans in Britain." This inspires him to urge Britain to take a look at Ireland, which hasn't adopted the same "levels of animosity toward EU immigrants." Given the "appalling way" the EU treated Ireland after the 2008 global financial crisis. As Ireland did not have sufficient reserves to cover its banks' debts, it agreed 85bn euro rescue package with EU and IMF in 2010 to tackle huge deficits. The government drafted an austerity programme entailing four years of tax rises and spending cuts. In 2008 Irish rejected the Treaty of Lisbon in a referendum, and "there is a potential anti-immigrant voting bloc in the poorer parts of Dublin," which is of the same ilk as those who voted to take Britain out of the EU - "poorer people who have not felt the gains from globalisation."
The author explains also the general sense of English exceptionalism, that has become part of Brexiteers' DNA. They believe their island was freer than the continent going back long before the Middle Ages. "Surely, the British media bear considerable responsibility" for advocating xenophobia. The author says, "Ireland has nothing like the mendacious, jingoistic gutter press that thrives in the UK." Indeed, Rupert Murdoch, the media mogul who owns some of the anti-EU tabloids had once said why he was so opposed to the European Union: “When I go into Downing Street they do what I say; when I go to Brussels they take no notice."
The author mainstains British political leaders are also to blame for Britain's acrimonious relationship with Brussels. Many of them "have made careers out of attacking the EU, often on entirely specious grounds." What is pathetic is the attitude of those "lukewarm Remainers, such as former Prime Minister David Cameron, who never made a strong case for continued membership in the EU." Even now one month after the referendum it has been quiet about those "committed Remainers /who/ are failing to make the case for continued two-way labor mobility between the UK and the EU, and for membership in the European Economic Area (EEA)."
Apart from resentment against immigration and globalisation, "cultural chauvinism" - a myth that the English society takes pride in cultivating, is the source of "animosity toward the presence of fellow Europeans." Fortunately "Ireland hasn’t had this problem." Thanks to Sinn Féin, Ireland’s nationalist party and the former political arm of the Irish Republican Army, has "not indulged in the kind of xenophobic rhetoric used by the UK Independence Party." Moreover Sinn Féin "has gone out of its way to adopt a progressive stance on the issue of immigration from the EU and elsewhere."
It's true that "shortfalls in public services" had driven many into the arms of "Brexiteers." It is unlikely, that "former Remainers /will/ continue to explain to the English why the free exchange of goods, services, and people with Europe is good for Britain." Even those Brexiteers appointed by Theresa May to negotiate with the EU are divided over the issue of immigration and access to Europe's single market. Alternatively there are two options: "membership in the EEA, with access to Europe’s single market and free movement of people, or an exit from the single market, followed by unpredictable trade negotiations." In this regard the government should hold another referendum to decide "which of these two outcomes English voters /should/ choose.
The author says, "it looks as though the UK is now headed for the second option – a “hard” Brexit – by default." He takes the Remainers to taks for not making "the case for EEA membership, when they had previously been in favor of remaining in the EU, /which/ is an astonishing abdication of responsibility." As Brexit is in limbo, Britain's economy will continue to suffer, and it may take years for it to move on - not exactly the rosy picture that Brexiteers had painted.

I think mr o'rourke rightly castigates the appalling press in England that has been whipping up xenophobia. But he is quite wrong to criticise the English people of "cultural chauvinism" and "animosity to fellow Europeans". In my opinion the press has failed in a concerted campaign in which it has tried to scapegoat foreigners for the economic failings of policies that the press barons like very much(ie. Austerity/tax avoidance) Let's look at the evidence:

1) UKIP and other far right groups have failed to take a hold despite the support of the popular press and even mainstream broadcasters at times, At the height of its popularity UKIP managed to win only one seat and its leader lost in an apparent stronghold area. Yes they did manage 4 million votes but many of those were protest votes in safe seats. Contrast this to mainland Europe where the far right have made far greater inroads!!!

2) Latest figures show the UKs real wage growth since 2007 has been as low as Greece and far behind its European partners. Undoubtedly largely due to Osbornomics but also some wage compression due to an influx of immigrants. If anything it is quite remarkable that the English public have not resorted to xenophobia and bought the rubbish churned out by the tabloids.

3) Most of the debates I've seen and some polling indicate that eurosceptism is fuelled by concern about the direction of the EU and its failings as much as by concern about the very real pressures on our infrastructure brought about in part by increased immigration.

One final point if like me you are a loyal labour voter and have concerns about ever buying a house or finding a school place for your child and you are realistic to realise that we are stuck with a Tory govt for the foreseeable future that refuses to build houses, schools and hospitals then which way would you have voted in the referendum? If you are concerned about an undemocratic union with 5 presidents who can't be voted out and a failing currency with members down on their luck who are left to sink.

Mr o'rourke, the truth is the remain campaign failed completely and utterly to make their case and the result is NOT about an inherent English xenophobia. Truth be told if they held referendums across Europe today there might be more exits.....

I think part of the problem is that those who voted Leave now have control - and they are determined that future decisions about whether the UK should aim for EEA status should be made within the Tory party rather than by the whole electorate.
Suppose that the electorate is split with 45% favouring Remain, 20% EEA status and 35% are 'hard' version of Leave. Then the final outcome will depend on the order in which votes are taken - but if those who favour the hard Leave option can ensure that the overall 'Remain-Leave' vote occurs first, and that the subsequent choice between hard Leave and EEA is taken within the Leave camp, they can get their way despite being a minority within the wider electorate.
With the Labour Party in total disarray and the Liberal Democrats almost wiped out in 2015, it's not clear how those who voted for Remain can influence proceedings.

Similarly, you could have split the remain vote into say 20% Remain (status quo) and 35% Remain (with EU reforms). A big part of the reason Remain lost is because nobody believed the EU could reform in terms of corruption, democratic deficit, fixing it's currency problems etc and indeed many believed that over time it would drift to a more integrated federalist Union - again without mandate or further referendums.

Remain lost and now it is inevitable that those advocating for remain will lose influence on negotiating our exit. The choice was binary and the losers have to accept that unfortunately.

Let's say that UK politicians indeed failed to make a compelling case for the EU, but can the author make that case?

Why can't Britain just have free trade with the EU without having the mobility of labour? Can you imagine what would happen if NAFTA included a free movement of labour? Yet GDP per capita difference between Mexico and the US is the same as between Romania and Britain.

Have you read some of the authors work?! He has done some excellent analysis of the problem in the Eurozone brought about by deflation and lowflation. His conclusion if I remember was that the ecb/eu was completely failing to reflate the economy in order to deal with the debt problems in the periphery. Kevin correct me if I'm wrong but it seemed to me yet another powerful critique of the euro project. I would love to see him put forward a compelling remain case that didn't contradict his previous work!

Over the last 15 years I lived in the UK I did notice the very precise phenomena the author describes: an ever increasing, rhetorically aggressive English nationalism morphing gradually into an outright xenophobia and chauvinism. Thatcher legitimised this and left it as a legacy in the right wing of the Conservative party. For decades, it masqueraded as an acceptable and even respectable Euroscepticism, so it was never challenged on a moral ground as it lined up sovereignist arguments and criticisms of Brussels’ bureaucracy in a seemingly rational language. The tabloids (though not just those, some of the broadsheets like the Telegraph and Murdoch’s Times) have persisted in an unrelenting and unremitting flood of anti-EU rhetoric. I many cases, what was written was beyond the pale, extreme and destructive. The tone was set for the entire political establishment in the country (including the Labour party and broadcasters) that the only acceptable way of talking about the EU and Europe is in a negative tone. Pro EU politicians had to tone down their opinions in order to be seen as acceptable by the press (this has been discussed during the Leveson inquiry, both John Major and Tony Blair were under such pressure). It is a complete fallacy that the debate about the referendum was entirely rational and respectable – it wasn’t as it was already based on the foundations of an aggressive nationalism unleashed by the right wing Tories, the tabloids and UKIP.
Obviously, these were not the only causes of the Brexit vote and other serious issues have played a role in this outcome. But one cannot look the other way and deny the darker side of what happened. And also it is very difficult from a moral point of view to accept and respect the nationalists and their arguments.

I don't doubt that immigration played a role in Britain's decision to leave the EU -- but I do doubt if the issue was the only one in play, and suspect that many thoughtful "leave" voters had other concerns about both the future of the EU and Britain's role in it that drove their votes.

Perhaps the decisive two percent of the vote that decided the Brexit issue came from people who were genuinely concerned about issues like sovereignty -- who can say?

Without doing considerable research I cannot make anything other than a passing comment.

However I find it an odd claim to be satisfied with the volume of migrants to Ireland when at the same time there is a crisis of young qualified Irish having to leave Ireland. I would prefer to hear from the recently departed

Irelands growth has been on the back of the tax break it has offered more than anything else and the EU has repeatedly suggested that loophole has to be closed

As regards the headliners on your list (your figure 1) it is noteable that bar Ireland they are small nations Luxembourg, Cyprus, Austria, Belgium, Sweden and it is very debatable that all are happy with the situation, certainly Sweden and Austria have pretty much said the house is full so it is ingenious to suggest things are comfortable

Ireland as far as I am aware has never been regarded as a traditional manufacturing base whereas the UK has and it is the loss of well paying traditional industrial jobs in the UK which probably underpins the Brexit

The constant belittling of Brexit does nobody any favours and suggesting 52% of the UK are bigots is dubious. More attention needs to be given to the very real issues that lead us here